From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 13:22:41 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22831; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id ED2AD17E89; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from teapot.egroups.net (teapot.egroups.net [63.204.207.250])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3106417E89
for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8288 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 05:59:29 -0000
Received: (QMFILT: 1.0); 27 Jun 2000 06:59:29 -0000
Received: from c675142-a.smateo1.sfba.home.com (HELO egroups.net) (24.14.148.152)
by teapot.egroups.net with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 05:59:29 -0000
Message-ID: <3958444E.B035AF8@egroups.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:06:06 -0700
From: Mark Fletcher
Organization: eGroups, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: egroups
References: <200006270455.VAA24033@honor.greatcircle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Alan S. Harrell wrote:
>
> I could list several minor issues, but in my way of thinking the only
> major negatives concern the actual business of eGroups. eGroups is not
> in the business of hosting mailing lists. They are in the business of
> selling ads and selling targeted information to information brokers.
> The mailing lists' service are merely the means to their profits.
>
Just a quick correction. We take privacy concerns extremely seriously
and never disclose individual subscriber information to third parties.
Any information is in aggregate, like "target this ad to all groups in
this particular category." I'm not sure what you mean by selling
targeted information to information brokers, but that does not sound
like something we do.
If anyone has any questions about eGroups privacy policy or anything
else about eGroups, please feel free to contact me directly.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark Fletcher
CTO
eGroups, Inc.
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 13:50:30 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22900; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id 742F117EB4; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.tidalwave.com [208.211.3.21])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90E017E89
for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22070
for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:25:11 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: I love it when examples present themselves (Re: The joys of opt-out)
Message-ID: <20000627162511.A22035@gsp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Here's an example of opt-out spamming that arrived just moments ago:
----- Forwarded message from The Voodoo Donkey -----
> From: The Voodoo Donkey
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:42:30 -0700
> Subject: Welcome to -Voodoo Donkey Fresh
> To: rsk@gsp.org
>
>
> The Voodoo Donkey, the owner of the mailing list '-Voodoo Donkey Fresh',
> has added you to this list at Topica.
[snip...]
Note the opt-out nature of this spam:
> If you do NOT want to be added to this list, simply reply
> to this message, and you will be immediately removed.
Too late. I've already been spammed. (And while I was composing *this*
message, a message from the mailing list itself arrived. So far, that
makes two spams and counting.)
And note Topica's excuses for supporting this spam:
> Topica cares about your privacy, and we take great measures
> to fight "spam." If you feel that someone is abusing the
> Topica system or is using your email address without your consent,
> please let us know by reporting it to abuse@get.topica.com.
Of course, they could avoid much of the issue simply by requiring
100% opt-in with confirmation.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 13:53:18 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA22960; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix, from userid 1013)
id A338917E89; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu (bp.ucs.usl.edu [130.70.40.36])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B2417E89
for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from louisiana.edu (sur047.usl.edu [130.70.1.47])
by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/ucs-server_1.4) with ESMTP id KAA00737;
Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:38:11 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <395A1C2E.AEBE37DB@louisiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:39:26 -0500
From: Istvan Berkeley
Organization: Philosophy, The University of Louisiana at Lafayette
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more on blocking/filtering MIME
References: <200006260800.BAA08376@honor.greatcircle.com> <39593599.16194.11829D1@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi there,
I came across a compelling reason to stick to text only mail over the
weekend. I was up in Canada and could only access my e-mail via a bare
telnet link. This put me back into the world of elm, vi, etc. As a
consequence, I could only easily read text only mail. The one bit of
HTML mail which did arrive was readable, but only just.
A second reason for favouring text only mail is that there are still a
few non-MIME compliant mail systems out there, amazingly enough. There
is one at John's Hopkins U. for example. I am a great believer in
backward compatibility. For this reason, I remain a strong advocate of
text only mail.
That is my two cents. All the best,
Istvan
PHILOSOP Moderator
--
Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D.
Philosophy & Cognitive Science E-mail: istvan@usl.edu
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette
[Formerly, The University of Southwestern Louisiana]
P.O. Box 43770 Tel: +1 318 482-6807
Lafayette, LA 70504-3770 Fax: +1 318 482-6195
USA http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~isb9112
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 15:30:40 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA25078; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE45217E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e63MFAo26906
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:15:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:15:36 -0700
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: spam.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I figured folks on this list would appreciate this.
We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
Hard copy spam, and not even the normal stuff you see from the
gardening services and pizza joints... What caught me was how typical
the subject matter was to the kind of on-line spam we yell at all the
time...
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 17:15:45 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA26029; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69ADE17E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER136.GVA.NET [216.80.135.140])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e6400YQ30310
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:00:34 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040000.e6400YQ30310@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:00:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: more on blocking/filtering MIME
In-reply-to: <395A1C2E.AEBE37DB@louisiana.edu>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 28 Jun 2000, at 10:39, Istvan Berkeley wrote:
> I came across a compelling reason to stick to text only mail over the
> weekend. I was up in Canada and could only access my e-mail via a bare
> telnet link. This put me back into the world of elm, vi, etc. As a
> consequence, I could only easily read text only mail. The one bit of
> HTML mail which did arrive was readable, but only just.
IMO, this is no more compelling than arguing that because you found
yourself stranded with only a model-33 TTY that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO
MONOCASE TEXT AND STOP WITH THE FANCY STUFF...
Now, there *is* reason, often good reason, for *some* forums to
require/prefer "plain text" because it is pretty much universal [the
hackers keeping their mod-33's still working notwithstanding..:o)], but
the point was (at least _my_ point was) that for _most_ folk, just-plain-
ascii is really passe and ugly. Almost everyone *FOR*EVERYTHING*ELSE*,
from their correspondence to the articles they read and write to the
presentations they make, well to *EVERYTHING*, use real, standard
typographic conventions and techniques... It is just hard to argue that
email is _so_special_ that it, and only it, among the ways available for
folks to communicate in this day and age should still be paying homage to
the 70s and VT-100s and all that...
> A second reason for favouring text only mail is that there are still a
> few non-MIME compliant mail systems out there, amazingly enough. There
> is one at John's Hopkins U. for example. I am a great believer in
> backward compatibility.
GREAT... SHOULDN"T UPSET THOSE FOLK WITH UPPERCASE-ONLY TERMINALS THEN,
EITHER, RIGHT?
Truth is that at some point you have to decide that the standards have
been in placed long enough that _everyone_ should expect them to be
honored and supported and those that can't/won't should just be left
behind... MIME isn't some new-kid-on-the-block mail standard... it is
pretty settled and has been for some time.
I, too, am a fan of backwards compatibility, but I was glad to see NCP
die and be replaced by TCP... and yes, some hosts left the ARPAnet never
to return [because no one wanted to bother (or could) reimplementing the
drivers in the bowels of the OS]... at some point you have to declare
that something is "official" and non-compliant folks are on their own...
IMO, "MIME", per se,passed *THAT* juncture long ago...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER136.GVA.NET [216.80.135.140])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e640A4Q30568
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:10:04 -0400
Message-Id: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:10:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: spam.
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Jul 2000, at 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I figured folks on this list would appreciate this.
>
> We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
> morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
> seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
> ...What caught me was how typical
> the subject matter was to the kind of on-line spam we yell at all the
> time...
Indeed, although an important difference to keep in mind is that that
kind of spam dealt with in seconds with a keystroke or two [or even
automatically in most cases], whereas the hardcopy stuff we've learned to
just live with has to be handled, sorted, and carted to the dump [no
recycling for that sort of stuff in this area] and actually wastes
*real*time*...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-197.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.197])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07180
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:55:18 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:01:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: egroups
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
In-reply-to: <3958444E.B035AF8@egroups.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 26 Jun 2000, 23:06, Mark Fletcher resp moi:
> > I could list several minor issues, but in my way of thinking the only
> > major negatives concern the actual business of eGroups. eGroups is
> > not in the business of hosting mailing lists. They are in the
> > business of selling ads and selling targeted information to
> > information brokers. The mailing lists' service are merely the means
> > to their profits.
> >
> Just a quick correction. We take privacy concerns extremely seriously
> and never disclose individual subscriber information to third parties.
That is not a correction. That is merely a statement to be believed or
not to be believed. I take a precautionary approach on each and every
so called "Privacy Statement" I see. eGroups, themselves, are not
singled out in my distrust of "Privacy Statements." I don't really
believe *any* of them.
No Privacy statement is secure so long as there is a possibility of a
disgruntled employee. It only takes one disgruntled employee to
compromise privacy security measures. It has been written time and
time again, that the greatest threat to a network's security is within
it's own infrastructure. Insiders.
Are *all* your employees happy, Mark? Don't be too sure.
No Privacy statement is secure so long as there are talented hackers
bent on mischief. There is no system in the Internet totally secure
from present or future attempts to invade their computers and take
information. It's been done before and will be done again. "Security"
always follows adversity -- never the other way around.
No Privacy statement is secure when companies fail. No matter what the
Privacy statement stated; no matter what the policy the company held
during better times -- the creditors will win out and can demand
profiles and even credit card info be sold to the highest bidder in
order to recoup some of the loses. See the following article:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-2176430.html
No Privacy statement is secure when companies are sold or merged into
another company. Anything like that happening to eGroups here lately?
We cannot ensure that Yahoo will embrace your Privacy Statements. Can
I see hands in the audience -- how many former Netscape registrees felt
really secure with their registration info getting into the hands of
AOL when AOL took over that company? I dare say none.
No Privacy statement can be believe when the bias of the stater is
clearly beholding to the people who pay them the money that sustains
their business. Were I paying you the same thousands of dollars each
year that your sponsors pay you, then perhaps I would have more faith
in your assurances of privacy preservation, but as it stands, the
subscribers to eGroups mailing list pay you no money and you are not
owing to them at all.
Loyalty is a good thing, but most often in business, it is bought.
> Any information is in aggregate, like "target this ad to all groups in
> this particular category." I'm not sure what you mean by selling
> targeted information to information brokers, but that does not sound
> like something we do.
If that is true, then you should now end the practice of securing
personal profiles of the members (subscribers) of the eGroups lists.
If your sponsors are not wanting profile information for the purpose of
releasing targeted ads, then you have no need for collection of
personal data from eGroups members, do you? Unless you sell or trade
the information, yourself.
As long as you collect personal information from eGroups' list
subscribers, it will be believed that you have some purpose with this
information. Logically, the purpose would be to make money with the
information.
My trust in eGroups would rise immeasurably if eGroups did not have to
know my name and address and my personal habits every time I tried to
subscribe to a mailing list with a different e-mail address.
I am not alone in my beliefs. I call all your attentions to the
following document recently put out by The Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) and Junkbusters:
"Pretty Poor Privacy: An Assessment of P3P and Internet Privacy"
June 2000
http://www.epic.org/reports/prettypoorprivacy.html
Mark, it isn't just me -- the public in mass just does_not_believe the
Privacy statements of Internet firms. The public will not believe
yours, either.
I also invite everyone to send for an autoresponder I have of a
newsletter article on Internet Privacy. The author states his case
rather well, I think, and really mirrors my own thinking on the
subject. To receive "Preserving your Privacy in the Internet," send a
blank message to:
privacy@ashlists.org
Privacy statements themselves, are notoriously ambiguous. Yours is no
exception, Mark. Here is one passage from your Privacy Policy:
"As a general rule, eGroups will not disclose any of your personally
identifiable information except when we have your permission or under
special circumstances, such as when we believe in good faith that the
law requires it."
Now what did you just say there?
(1) General rule: eGroups will not disclose any of our personally
identifiable information
(2) Exception: If we give eGroups permission.
(3) Another Exception: Under {undisclosed} special circumstances
(4) And yet another Exception: When eGroups thinks the law allows them
to do this, even though the law may not necessary be requiring eGroups
to do this.
You can read that statement to be: "We can do anything we want with
your information." That is exactly what it says, once you break it
down.
So really, Mark, who are you kidding? Your Privacy Statement is a
contradictory, convoluted cocktail meant to intoxicate your users into
believing their personal profiles are safe in your hands.
> If anyone has any questions about eGroups privacy policy or anything
> else about eGroups, please feel free to contact me directly.
That is very cowardly invitation, Mark. In private e-mail, lies can be
told unchallenged. They would only get the company line from you in
private mail. We have all already seen that.
Only in a public forum that engages in open discussions, can the truth
be found. Have the guts to invite those whom subscribe to this list to
post their questions and render their opinions about the eGroups
Privacy Policy in a public forum.
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 19:30:34 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA27312; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mds1.mastnet.net (mds1.mastnet.net [206.65.193.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDF717E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-197.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.197])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA11317
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:00:46 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:06:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: spam.
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <39610059.628.AE67F3@localhost>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Jul 2000, 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I figured folks on this list would appreciate this.
>
> We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
> morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
> seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
Porch, huh?
It chaps me to no end when they leave their litter pinched under our
vehicle windshield wipers. That's when I feel really violated.
Surely your city has litter laws for littering laying leaflets on local
limits without a lawful letter license?
> Hard copy spam, and not even the normal stuff you see from the
> gardening services and pizza joints... What caught me was how typical
> the subject matter was to the kind of on-line spam we yell at all the
> time...
You should give the "power managers" a call and ask them to bring out
to you a pepperoni pizza and while the boy was there delivering the
pizza, could he mow and trim your yard, too? :-)
Don't take "no" for an answer!
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 19:45:34 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA27452; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from green.excel.net (excel.net [156.46.156.2])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C73117E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.145.193.217] (mke0925.excel.net [216.145.193.217])
by green.excel.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22870
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:25:54 -0500 (CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
References: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:26:20 -0500
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Mike Yuhas
Subject: Re: spam.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 8:10 PM -0400 7/3/00, Bernie Cosell wrote:
>On 3 Jul 2000, at 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
>> I figured folks on this list would appreciate this.
>>
>> We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
>> morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
>> seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
>> ...What caught me was how typical
>> the subject matter was to the kind of on-line spam we yell at all the
>> time...
>
>Indeed, although an important difference to keep in mind is that that
>kind of spam dealt with in seconds with a keystroke or two [or even
>automatically in most cases], whereas the hardcopy stuff we've learned to
>just live with has to be handled, sorted, and carted to the dump [no
>recycling for that sort of stuff in this area] and actually wastes
>*real*time*...
Heh heh -- I got to the bottom of Bernie's message distinctifying the
two types of spam before I realized he was speaking of how the
*recipient* needs to deal with incoming spam. For me, the noteworthy
difference is that a human -- or a team of humans -- designed the
leaflet, duplicated and folded them, then individually placed 'em on
all the porches in Chuq's neighborhood. That involved some real
effort, as opposed to some geek haphazardly composing a "message" and
flooding it on the internet with a few keystrokes (and a million
verified email addresses for $29.95).
Cheers,
Mike Yuhas
listmom, folkdj-l
http://folkradio.org
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 20:00:35 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA27600; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD31317E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
by smtp2.vnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e642hdJ06952;
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11381;
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: murr rhame
To: Bernie Cosell
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
In-Reply-To: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2000, at 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
> > I figured folks on this list would appreciate this.
> >
> > We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
> > morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
> > seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
> > ...What caught me was how typical
> > the subject matter was to the kind of on-line spam we yell at all the
> > time...
>
> Indeed, although an important difference to keep in mind is
> that that kind of spam dealt with in seconds with a keystroke
> or two [or even automatically in most cases], whereas the
> hardcopy stuff we've learned to just live with has to be
> handled, sorted, and carted to the dump [no recycling for
> that sort of stuff in this area] and actually wastes
> *real*time*...
Hardcopy spam is self limiting. If I want to spam you with a
hardcopy ad, it'll cost about fifty-cents to deliver the first
page and a nickel a piece for addition pages. If I want to send
you a half dozen copies of a ten page email spam, I can do it at
your expense with the aid of an open relay in Sweden or Korea.
There is no comparison. Most Internet spammers steal services.
Most hardcopy spam costs enough to keep it to a minimum.
- murr -
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 21:09:42 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA28234; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CC017E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e643m3o27372;
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:48:03 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <39610059.628.AE67F3@localhost>
References: <39610059.628.AE67F3@localhost>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:43:59 -0700
To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: spam.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 9:06 PM -0500 7/3/00, Alan S. Harrell wrote:
>Surely your city has litter laws for littering laying leaflets on local
>limits without a lawful letter license?
Unfortunately, no, and worse, the courts have made it perfectly clear
that these people have a constitutional right to be in public places
and make their position known. The shopping centers aren't allowed to
kick them off, even though it's private property.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 21:24:57 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA28235; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DB017EB4
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e643lvo27369;
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:48:03 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
References: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:38:11 -0700
To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: egroups
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 8:01 PM -0500 7/3/00, Alan S. Harrell wrote:
>
>No Privacy statement is secure so long as there is a possibility of a
>disgruntled employee.
And the sun could go nova tomorrow, so why worry?
No offense, but this is a last resort argument with a basis only in
absolute paranoia. If you took this extreme position about everything
in life, you'd be paralyzed (or more likely, dead, because the only
safe state is death...)
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 21:39:10 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA28561; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mds1.mastnet.net (mds1.mastnet.net [206.65.193.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F82A17E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-197.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.197])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA19526
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:14:19 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:20:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: egroups
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <39611FA6.29679.128B494@localhost>
In-reply-to:
References: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Jul 2000, 20:38, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> And the sun could go nova tomorrow, so why worry?
Yes, the sun could very well go nova tomorrow. So then, you would
advocate a "What me worry?" attitude? I take it then you don't use
virus scanners or firewalls and you pass out your passwords with
reckless abandon, right? :-)
I like to bet that the sun will hold off a few more days. This
increases my concerns to preserve what little aspect of my privacy I
have left in these short, few days we have left before the sun go boom.
> No offense, but this is a last resort argument with a basis only in
> absolute paranoia. If you took this extreme position about everything in
> life, you'd be paralyzed (or more likely, dead, because the only safe
> state is death...)
This is not a worry on my part. It is a realistic approach to privacy
concerns. And quite simply when I see a lie I like to point it out.
Were it up to me, I would simply tell all dot com firms offering free
services that they need not have a privacy statement at all. Let the
visitor beware. I think the WWW would be a far safer environment if we
all had realistic appraisals of such things as cookies, privacy
statements, port probes, etc. and not be misled into misrepresentation.
Caveat emptor is not paranoia, but rather sound common sense.
Early in my Internet experiences I recognized how ludicrous were the
privacy statements. You learn quick that a healthy distrust of privacy
statements will cut down on the spam, telemarketing calls and junk mail
to which we are inundated every day. Even on our porches...
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 3 23:09:04 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA29437; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513B617E89
for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e645lmo27538;
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:47:48 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <39611FA6.29679.128B494@localhost>
References: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
<39611FA6.29679.128B494@localhost>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:39:58 -0700
To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: egroups
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> > And the sun could go nova tomorrow, so why worry?
>
>Yes, the sun could very well go nova tomorrow. So then, you would
>advocate a "What me worry?" attitude? I take it then you don't use
>virus scanners or firewalls and you pass out your passwords with
>reckless abandon, right? :-)
Nope. I protect myself against reasonable risks. But if someone says
"I don't do that", and I have no reason to believe they lie, I don't
put in protections assuming they do it anyway.
>I like to bet that the sun will hold off a few more days.
And I like to bet that if someone says "I won't do this" they
actually won't do this. To assume that everyone around me is lying
and protect myself from it is one step from paranoia.
If you like being paranoid, be my guest. I think that kind of worry
is overkill, but then, we all have to have hobbies.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 02:23:34 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA01950; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [216.15.66.33])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CF317E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.9.0/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA04177; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:32:54 +0800 (CST)
From: James Lick
To: Istvan Berkeley
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more on blocking/filtering MIME
In-Reply-To: <395A1C2E.AEBE37DB@louisiana.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Istvan Berkeley wrote:
> I came across a compelling reason to stick to text only mail over the
> weekend. I was up in Canada and could only access my e-mail via a bare
> telnet link. This put me back into the world of elm, vi, etc. As a
> consequence, I could only easily read text only mail. The one bit of
> HTML mail which did arrive was readable, but only just.
I too often read mail over a text-only telnet connection. However, this
doesn't preclude me from reading HTML mail or browsing the web. pine 4.x
reads HTML mails quite nicely, and lynx browses most web sites with few
problems. Both work on just about any decent text-only terminal.
---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com ---- http://drivel.com/ ----
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 05:52:50 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA06086; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mds1.mastnet.net (mds1.mastnet.net [206.65.193.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AFB17E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-162.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.162])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA01515
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:30:18 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:36:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: egroups
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <396193E7.14331.655E7D@localhost>
In-reply-to:
References: <39611FA6.29679.128B494@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 3 Jul 2000, 22:39, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
[Virus protection et al]
> Nope. I protect myself against reasonable risks. But if someone says "I
> don't do that", and I have no reason to believe they lie, I don't put in
> protections assuming they do it anyway.
Rationale, reason and experience has led me to my postulations on Internet
Privacy. The truly paranoid stay away from the Internet. And had you read
the literature I recommended in my first rebuttal post, you would see that
I am not alone in that thinking. Your Government, in fact, now thinks that
way:
~~
Privacy Online: Fair Information Practices in the Electronic Marketplace: A
Federal Trade Commission Report to Congress (May 2000)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/index.htm#22
~~
If one guy comes up to you and says "the sky is falling," it would be
reasonable to doubt that. But if a thousand people come up to you and say
"the sky is falling," I think one should look for cover rather than
accusing the thousand of being paranoid.
If I am the first person you ever heard warning you of the fallicy of
blindly trusting all Privacy Statements, then I could understand your
having a healthy disbelief of that which I speak. I would then only ask
that you keep your eyes open to the news. You should see very soon plenty
of articles that are written by privacy doubters, such as myself.
Surely you didn't think Sun Microsystems CEO and Chairman Scott McNealy was
paranoid when he uttered his now famous soundbyte: "You already have zero
privacy. Get over it."
Now there is a corporate type that tells it like it is. I like that. I
wish the CTO of eGroups that posted to our group would do likewise. Just
tell us the truth: "eGroups gives you zero privacy. Get over it."
I could respect that since it mirrors my own beliefs, except that rather
than "getting over it," I am going to instead "work around it." That
entails my message, Chuq. Rather than denying yourself all that is good in
the Internet, one should learn to distrust the privacy statements and then
learn to work around your privacy concerns, just as we learn to work around
our virus concerns.
> And I like to bet that if someone says "I won't do this" they
> actually won't do this. To assume that everyone around me is lying and
> protect myself from it is one step from paranoia.
Now, Chuq, I cannot believe you are that naive. This is not your best
friend telling you something. This is a corporate stranger telling you
this story. You have to take his bias into consideration.
You should ask yourself are you safer with blind faith or would a little
healthy doubt serve you better? People get run over when they cross the
street with blind faith. They are safer crossing the street by the light.
My message here is not to avoid crossing the street, but rather to see the
light and cross the street with caution.
> If you like being paranoid, be my guest. I think that kind of worry is
> overkill, but then, we all have to have hobbies.
My call here has not been "be afraid," but rather "be aware." That is not
paranoia, but just good common sense.
Let me invite you and everyone to simply read the eGroups Privacy Statement
from "cover to cover." You will see the ambiguities; the two-faced
language; the contradictions. It simply is not a document that gives you
trust:
http://www.egroups.com/info/privacy.html
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 16:43:58 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA11438; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 625DB17E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21686 invoked by uid 50); 4 Jul 2000 23:33:03 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
References: <39610059.628.AE67F3@localhost>
In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:43:59 -0700"
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 04 Jul 2000 16:33:03 -0700
Message-ID:
Lines: 12
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Chuq Von Rospach writes:
> Unfortunately, no, and worse, the courts have made it perfectly clear
> that these people have a constitutional right to be in public places and
> make their position known. The shopping centers aren't allowed to kick
> them off, even though it's private property.
California is absolutely idiotic in that regard. Most other states have
more sense.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 19:28:22 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA12821; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4E617E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
by smtp2.vnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e652Ipb16164;
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA08993;
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: murr rhame
To: Russ Allbery
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 4 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> California is absolutely idiotic in that regard [pamphleting
> rights]. Most other states have more sense.
A couple of cities where I've lived had laws against placing
flyers on car windshields. It's called littering. The feds get
upset if anyone except the postman delivers stuff to an official
snail mail box. Then there are also federal limits on
pamphleting at abortion clinics and such. You can't blockade a
building while handing out pamphlets.
- murr -
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 19:43:31 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA12890; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DBA717E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22096 invoked by uid 50); 5 Jul 2000 02:26:31 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
References:
In-Reply-To: murr rhame's message of "Tue, 4 Jul 2000 22:18:51 -0400 (EDT)"
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 04 Jul 2000 19:26:31 -0700
Message-ID:
Lines: 35
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
murr rhame writes:
> On 4 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> California is absolutely idiotic in that regard [pamphleting rights].
>> Most other states have more sense.
> A couple of cities where I've lived had laws against placing flyers on
> car windshields. It's called littering. The feds get upset if anyone
> except the postman delivers stuff to an official snail mail box. Then
> there are also federal limits on pamphleting at abortion clinics and
> such. You can't blockade a building while handing out pamphlets.
I was actually talking about private property rights and the fact that
supermarkets and the like can't kick panhandlers off their property and
instead put up little signs saying that the law doesn't allow them to do
so. It means that there are people frequently loitering about in some
locations, making some stores significantly more dangerous to, say, women
alone when shopping after dark.
I think it's complete nonsense. People who aren't shopping at the store
have no business being on the store's property, and the store should be
able to call the police and have them escorted off the premises.
I'm not sure on the law about pamphleting around here; I agree that it is
and should be considered by the law to be littering.
(This is all horribly off-topic... I guess the only real relevance is that
while private property rights I think is still the most cogent argument
against spamming, it is -- all too unfortunately -- not particularly
uncommon for governments to decide that private property owners have to
provide various services to people they don't want to provide for no good
reasons whatsoever. Lets hope they don't do the same thing with spam.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 20:54:10 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA13448; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2A117E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e653aBo29677;
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:36:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:35:18 -0700
To: Russ Allbery , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: spam.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 7:26 PM -0700 7/4/00, Russ Allbery wrote:
>I was actually talking about private property rights and the fact that
>supermarkets and the like can't kick panhandlers off their property
>
>I think it's complete nonsense.
One of the joys of free speech is that it protects the stuff you
don't like as well as the stuff you do. In fact, if it only had to
protect the stuff people liked, we wouldn't need it in the first
place. So every time something like this pisses you off, rejoice,
because next time, it might by you being protected from someone who
doensn't like what you have to say.
A little inconvenience is a tiny price to pay for what we get out of it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 21:13:23 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA13587; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 50D2017E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22295 invoked by uid 50); 5 Jul 2000 04:01:27 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
References:
In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:35:18 -0700"
From: Russ Allbery
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 04 Jul 2000 21:01:27 -0700
Message-ID:
Lines: 31
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Chuq Von Rospach writes:
> One of the joys of free speech is that it protects the stuff you don't
> like as well as the stuff you do. In fact, if it only had to protect the
> stuff people liked, we wouldn't need it in the first place. So every
> time something like this pisses you off, rejoice, because next time, it
> might by you being protected from someone who doensn't like what you
> have to say.
I don't agree that freedom of speech implies the right to stand in front
of the entrance of a store, on that store's private property, and harass
everyone who comes by. Similarly, I don't agree that freedom of speech
implies the right to relay spam off of someone else's mail servers. I
consider both of these to be basically the same sort of situation.
> A little inconvenience is a tiny price to pay for what we get out of it.
And precisely the same thing is said by a lot of people about e-mail spam.
They're wrong.
And, on this particular point (and this is the last I'll say on the topic,
since it really is off-topic), if you think that this is a minor
inconvenience, I respectfully submit that you haven't talked to people
who, because of the people who hang around in parking lots and the like
after dark, no longer feel safe going shopping for groceries after then
sun has gone down. It's a *serious* and *significant* inconvenience for
them to rearrange their schedules, particularly if they work Silicon
Valley hours, to deal with that problem. And it's not-unwarranted worry.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 4 23:52:04 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA14835; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53F217E89
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e656Wqo29964
for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:32:52 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:33:21 -0700
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: a minor giggle...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
fiogured this was a lot more amusing than arguing over free speech,
and even marginally on topic...
Was going through the bounce mail on my lists tonight, and suddenly
started seeing mail being bounced because of ORBs, which caused me to
go and see what was going on.
It wasn't me... Instead, much to my (minor) amusement, one of my
subscribers is on a site doing ORBs checking -- and the site's MX
relay machines have been stuck into ORBs and the internal mail server
is bouncing the mail.
Which merely serves as a reminder that if you police with this stuff,
you should make sure your sites are clean. But I also wonder why
they're doing ORBs checking on the internal machines and not the
firewall relay machines. But they're not getting much mail right now,
because they're rejecting themselves...
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 07:12:10 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA21644; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA10C17E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
by smtp2.vnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e65EA9A13711;
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25955;
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: murr rhame
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: Russ Allbery , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> At 7:26 PM -0700 7/4/00, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >I was actually talking about private property rights and the
> >fact that >supermarkets and the like can't kick panhandlers
> >off their property
>
> One of the joys of free speech is that it protects the stuff
> you don't like as well as the stuff you do. In fact, if it
> only had to protect the stuff people liked, we wouldn't need
> it in the first place. So every time something like this
> pisses you off, rejoice, because next time, it might by you
> being protected from someone who doensn't like what you have
> to say.
>
> A little inconvenience is a tiny price to pay for what we get
> out of it.
Yup. Freedom of speech is very important. Hard to justify
kicking pampleters out of an otherwise public space as long as
they are civil. Same applies to someone dropping a leaflet on my
front porch. Assuming I would allow my neighbor to knock on my
door to ask for a cup of sugar, I stranger should be able to take
advantage of the same level of liberty on my property. On the
other hand, I have zero tolerance for Internet spammers that use
theft or deception to deliver their goods.
- murr -
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 09:12:25 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA22944; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailstore-1.mail.knowledge.com (frida.server.knowledge.com [195.40.167.210])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6306117E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.2.19.4] (helo=lhrfnoc4dt)
by mailstore-1.mail.knowledge.com with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1)
id 139rmd-0005HI-00; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:12:19 +0100
Message-ID: <04fe01bfe69b$b287d930$81010a0a@flagtelecom.com>
From: "Peter Galbavy"
To: "murr rhame" , "Chuq Von Rospach"
Cc: "Russ Allbery" ,
References:
Subject: Re: spam.
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:11:32 -0000
Organization: Knowledge Matters Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> Yup. Freedom of speech is very important. Hard to justify
> kicking pampleters out of an otherwise public space as long as
> they are civil. Same applies to someone dropping a leaflet on my
> front porch. Assuming I would allow my neighbor to knock on my
> door to ask for a cup of sugar, I stranger should be able to take
> advantage of the same level of liberty on my property. On the
> other hand, I have zero tolerance for Internet spammers that use
> theft or deception to deliver their goods.
Sorry - missed the earlier part of this thread.
Please remember that freedom of speech is something limited to certain
countries. This does not include the UK, where I live.
Spammers, never-the-less, are stealing resources from you and should be
treated as such. The same as cold callers on the phone when you are at
home - they steal time and privacy.
Peter
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 09:28:30 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA22952; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from janus.hosting4u.net (janus.hosting4u.net [209.15.2.37])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C5B4917E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22673 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2000 16:13:17 -0000
Received: from gemini.hosting4u.net (HELO macnauchtan.com) (209.15.2.47)
by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 5 Jul 2000 16:13:17 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.11] ([166.44.184.250]) by macnauchtan.com ; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:13:14 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: dmcnutt@mail.macnauchtan.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:14:11 -0600
To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
From: "Douglas P. McNutt"
Subject: RE: The joys of opt-out
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I received this piece of junque and I wonder why. Is there any chance that my lurker status on the MajorDomo list is the source for the spam? I have not even started operating the list I am proposing.
I assure you I have not opted in, but I might well have failed to opt out. I don't dare to poke any of their anchors.
*** begin copy with headers ***
Return-Path:
Received: from postmater4.com ([216.37.208.98]) by macnauchtan.com ; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 03:41:45 -0500
Received: from localhost (root@localhost)
by postmater4.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA16550;
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
From: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
Received: by postmater4.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:23:01 +0000
To: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
Subject: Thank you for joining!
Message-ID:
X-Rcpt-To:
X-DPOP: DPOP Version 2.4a
X-UIDL: 962806957.007
Status: U
You received this copy as a subscriber to our opt-in email list.
If you no longer wish to receive solicitations simply unsubscribe by
clicking here: http://208.62.22.26/remove/remove2.html
Unsubscribe
.............................................................................
Thank you for Joining the Postmaster Network. You will receive offers
on the products and services that interest you most.
Look out for the following special offers in the months to come:
** FREE Full Version Software
** FREE 50 Minutes Long Distance
** FEEE Internet Connectivity
** FREE Persomnal / Business Web Pages
...and many more
************************************************************************
Special Thanks To This Months Sponsor:
FREE 50 Minutes Long Distance
free50minutes@aol.com
*Crystal clear calling!
*Use the minutes whenever and wherever you like.
*No Obligation to buy anything!
*It's Really Absolutely FREE!
Click here: http://208.62.22.26/free/
Aol Members:
Click Here
--
-> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.216.27.193] (A17-216-27-193.apple.com [17.216.27.193])
by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA44204
; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:27:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:22:24 -0700
To: "Douglas P. McNutt" ,
list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: RE: The joys of opt-out
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 10:14 AM -0600 7/5/00, Douglas P. McNutt wrote:
>I received this piece of junque and I wonder why. Is there any
>chance that my lurker status on the MajorDomo list is the source for
>the spam?
I got it, too. it's spam, no matter what they say of opts and
whatever. All that is camoflauge.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 11:13:31 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA24074; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61E9E17E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19812 invoked by uid 100); 5 Jul 2000 14:03:39 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: John R Levine
To: "Douglas P. McNutt"
Cc: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: RE: The joys of opt-out
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
> I received this piece of junque and I wonder why.
They're famous spammers. It's almost certainly a coincidence that you
run a mailing list.
Regards,
John Levine, postmaster@abuse.net, http://www.abuse.net, Trumansburg NY
abuse.net postmaster
> *** begin copy with headers ***
>
> Return-Path:
> Received: from postmater4.com ([216.37.208.98]) by macnauchtan.com ; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 03:41:45 -0500
> Received: from localhost (root@localhost)
> by postmater4.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA16550;
> Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
> From: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
> Received: by postmater4.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:23:01 +0000
> To: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
> Subject: Thank you for joining!
> Message-ID:
> X-Rcpt-To:
> X-DPOP: DPOP Version 2.4a
> X-UIDL: 962806957.007
> Status: U
>
> You received this copy as a subscriber to our opt-in email list.
> If you no longer wish to receive solicitations simply unsubscribe by
> clicking here: http://208.62.22.26/remove/remove2.html
> Unsubscribe
> .............................................................................
>
> Thank you for Joining the Postmaster Network. You will receive offers
> on the products and services that interest you most.
>
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 12:27:36 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA25025; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roscoe.burstmedia.com (gateway.machine.net [207.159.105.131])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2880F17E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by BURSTMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10)
id <3CVA90GM>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:29:41 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Bob McCown
To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: RE: The joys of opt-out
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:29:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I recieved the same thing this morning.....Hmm
-=Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas P. McNutt [mailto:dmcnutt@macnauchtan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 12:14 PM
To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: RE: The joys of opt-out
I received this piece of junque and I wonder why. Is there any chance that
my lurker status on the MajorDomo list is the source for the spam? I have
not even started operating the list I am proposing.
I assure you I have not opted in, but I might well have failed to opt out. I
don't dare to poke any of their anchors.
*** begin copy with headers ***
Return-Path:
Received: from postmater4.com ([216.37.208.98]) by macnauchtan.com ; Wed, 05
Jul 2000 03:41:45 -0500
Received: from localhost (root@localhost)
by postmater4.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA16550;
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:44:46 -0400
From: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
Received: by postmater4.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:23:01
+0000
To: confirm2@mx01.postmasteroptin.net
Subject: Thank you for joining!
Message-ID:
X-Rcpt-To:
X-DPOP: DPOP Version 2.4a
X-UIDL: 962806957.007
Status: U
You received this copy as a subscriber to our opt-in email list.
If you no longer wish to receive solicitations simply unsubscribe by
clicking here: http://208.62.22.26/remove/remove2.html
Unsubscribe
............................................................................
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 5 14:12:27 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26215; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A218817E89
for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e65LAxw25320
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese"
To: Rich Kulawiec
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: I love it when examples present themselves (Re: The joys of
opt-out)
In-Reply-To: <20000627162511.A22035@gsp.org>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Of course, they could avoid much of the issue simply by requiring
> 100% opt-in with confirmation.
Does that mean that it should be impossible to transfer a list from other
servers, for instance?
Or that is should be impossible for an administrator to add a name --
kicking off a confirmation cycle -- but that names can only be initially
supplied by mail or from the web, presumably be the requestor but possibly
by a forger?
If I'm allowed to add you but that addition kicks off a confirmation
cycle, what's the difference if that confirmation message is spelled
"reply to remove yourself" or "reply to add yourself"?
Would it be any different if it said "reply to add yourself" after 100
lines of list-oriented content?
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
From list-managers-owner Thu Jul 6 22:16:18 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA16687; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBC417E89
for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ripco.com (root@golden.ripco.com [209.100.227.10])
by ripco.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15748
for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:10:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by ripco.com (Smail #1)
id m13AQOA-000IRHC; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:09:22 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id:
From: dattier@ripco.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Re: I love it when examples present themselves
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:09:22 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: from "Roger B.A. Klorese" at Jul 05, 2000 02:10:59 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
When Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Of course, they could avoid much of the issue simply by requiring
> 100% opt-in with confirmation.
Roger Klorese (so much for my usual practice of using an initial to dis-
tinguish one quotee from another when I include the text of more than one
other person) responded,
| Does that mean that it should be impossible to transfer a list from other
| servers, for instance?
I am not inside Rich's head, but in my own view, it would not be a tragedy
if every member had to confirm wanting to stay on the list when it moved
to a a big public listhost (even if the old server was another big public
listhost). My reasoning is that in such cases the big public listhost's
procedures and policies affect the list and its operations to such a degree
that this is a significant change, and a subscriber's confirmation for being
on the list as it was does not imply consent to being on what the list is
going to become.
If the same ultimate authority will be over the same list with the same poli-
cies and procedures on a different host, that's another story. Then I think
that simply moving the subscription roster is justified.
I'm soon closing my last list (and getting out of the listmaternity game for
good if I have any sense); for the past two years, it has run on the private
site of a member. Twice during this time she has changed upstream providers,
necessitating a change in OS and in IP address but not in domain name, not in
my policies, and not in my software. So I just moved the list; except for a
couple days of downtime it was all transparent to the members. Even before
that, when it moved from its original host to hers, the only thing that
changed was the domain name, and yes, I moved the subscriber roster without
requiring confirmations: the key thing was that it was still a list of the
same topic run the same way. But if she had not come through when I had to
get the list off its original host and I had had to move it to a public list-
host, then yes, it would have been correct to require every member to recon-
firm and bade farewell to those who declined to respond as well as to those
who proactively refused, and if I had just moved the rolls instead, then at
this point I would regret having done so even if there had been no com-
plaints. (I hope there are some people on list-managers who can understand
the idea of getting away with a wrong action and nonetheless coming to regret
having done it despite its having had no ill consequences.)
On the other hand, my list had a sublist (which has already closed; its pur-
pose has expired), and at one point I made such a drastic change to the sub-
list's policies that I gave its members thirty days' notice, telling them
that they had until the effective date of the new policies to send me their
consent to the changes; those who declined to reply and those who objected
would remain on the main list but would be removed from the sublist. None
objected, about 2/3 consented, but the rest did not reply and were removed
(they remained on the main list).
| Or that it should be impossible for an administrator to add a name --
| kicking off a confirmation cycle -- but that names can only be initially
| supplied by mail or from the web, presumably be the requestor but possibly
| by a forger?
As long as that confirmation cycle sends only a terse confirmation request
to the address, and that nothing more is sent there unless a positive reply
comes back, then the unwanted email load of that one confirmation request is
far less than that of an open-ended subscription. Besides a confirmation
request or an unconfirmed (and possibly unwanted) subscription, the only
other alternative I can think of is to ignore all subscription requests and
just never add anybody.
| If I'm allowed to add you but that addition kicks off a confirmation
| cycle, what's the difference if that confirmation message is spelled
| "reply to remove yourself" or "reply to add yourself"?
The difference is all the mail from the list that you'll get if you don't
answer, or if your reply cannot be processed by the bot, or if the mail
transports lose your reply. The difference is that between opt-out and
opt-in, because "take action to remove yourself" and "take action to add
yourself" are equivalent to those, respectively.
| Would it be any different if it said "reply to add yourself" after 100
| lines of list-oriented content?
Yes. That would be worse than saying "reply to add yourself" at the top of a
message whose remaining content was just a terse list description, but not so
bad as one saying "reply to remove yourself."
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 10 10:32:16 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA25385; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA38317E8A
for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from cnorman@localhost)
by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id KAA19698;
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200007101726.KAA19698@shell7.ba.best.com>
From: Cyndi Norman
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Cc: cnorman@best.com
Subject: AOL changing subject headers?
Reply-To: cnorman@best.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I've been noticing a problem lately with messages from AOL. It only
happens with messages an AOL user replies to.
When there is a word enclosed by angle brackets, AOL is adding a period
inbetween the open angle bracket and the first character within the
brackets.
The annoying example is when someone from AOL replies to a message on my
mailing list. I have it set up so that all subjects start with
AOL turns this into
This wouldn't be so bad except that the server software doesn't recognize
so it goes ahead and adds another
Here is an example of an actual subject header where this has happened:
Subject: Re: Question about testing for mercury
But now it's going beyond annoying into disruptive. I require
authentication of new subscriptions and the server software uses angle
brackets in the subject header that must be returned for the subscription
to go through. This means I'm getting a bunch of AOLers complaining that
they can't subscribe.
For a reason I can't figure out, the error message they get back is: "The
message you are authenticated has already been processed or has timed out"
But this software is specific to best.com so who knows why or how.
The potential subscriber gets a subject like this:
Subject: List Auth Request ID= REJECT
In order to subscribe they reply and change REJECT to ACCEPT. So they
should end up with a subject similar to this:
Subject: Re: List Auth Request ID= ACCEPT
AOL changes the outgoing subject to:
Subject: Re: List Auth Request ID= REJECT
The AOL user then changes REJECT to ACCEPT but leaves in the dot and the
authentication fails.
Hotmail also mangles angle brackets. In replies it will change <> to [].
This also causes authentication to fail. I have to have special
instructions for Hotmail users (ones that many other list owners at
best.com have links to).
Can anyone else confirm this bug at AOL and is there any way that AOL will
be willing to fix it?
Thank you,
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
From list-managers-owner Mon Jul 10 18:20:07 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA00380; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B639717E8A
for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id UAA20359 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:09:27 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200007110109.UAA20359@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:09:27 -0500
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey
To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 7/10/00 12:26 PM, Cyndi Norman wrote...
>When there is a word enclosed by angle brackets, AOL is adding a period
>inbetween the open angle bracket and the first character within the
>brackets.
The problem started a couple weeks ago. I was waiting to report it to see
if it would go away.
>The annoying example is when someone from AOL replies to a message on my
>mailing list. I have it set up so that all subjects start with
>AOL turns this into
>This wouldn't be so bad except that the server software doesn't recognize
> so it goes ahead and adds another
I would recommend using [ ] brackets instead, as are commonly used by
other mailing list managers.
In the meantime, I will report the problem to AOL.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 07:20:15 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA09831; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8233817E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tomw70 (adsl-151-202-20-126.bellatlantic.net [151.202.20.126])
by grassyhill.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA34078
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:17:33 GMT
(envelope-from tneff@panix.com)
From: "Tom Neff"
To:
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:18:20 -0400
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
In-Reply-To: <200007110800.BAA03879@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
It may very well have to do with something AOL is doing in HTML filtering.
Given the prevalence of < > based markup languages (HTML, XML etc) these
days, I would consider it most unwise to put angle brackets around my list
name. Adam is right, use square brackets instead.
> From: Cyndi Norman
> I've been noticing a problem lately with messages from AOL. It only
> happens with messages an AOL user replies to.
>
> When there is a word enclosed by angle brackets, AOL is adding a period
> inbetween the open angle bracket and the first character within the
> brackets.
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 08:49:05 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA10612; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EAE17E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER12.GVA.NET [216.80.135.16])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e6BFmlL12987
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:48:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200007111548.e6BFmlL12987@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:48:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Charging for spamming
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
I know this isn't a 'spam' list, but it does get discussed here and there
do seem to be partisans from most of the camps.
It is very hard to prevent a user of an ISP from spamming --- you can
keep the user from *continuing* to spam, but the damage is often already
done, the account a 'throw away' and the spammer moves on..
I was kicking around a thought: what if... the ToS for an ISP included a
reference to the AUP and basically said that there would be an $X
surcharge to a user's account in the event of violations of the AUP,
plus, say, $100/hr of billable time for any work it took on the part of
the support personnel to deal with the problem. Would this be legal?
Would it work [at the least to get spammers to go 'elsewhere'.. I realize
that it is a bit like the [futile] attempt to control coyotes down here:
you can't build fences good enough to keep a hungry coyote away from your
livestock.... so what you aim for is to have a better fence than your
neighbors..:o), but at least that'd be better than doing *NOTHING* [other
than closing the barn door after the spam-horses are already out].
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER12.GVA.NET [216.80.135.16])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e6BHJPI18355
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:19:25 -0400
Message-Id: <200007111719.e6BHJPI18355@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:19:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Charging for spamming
In-reply-to: <396B5214.4C66A49E@neatnettricks.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11 Jul 2000, at 10:57, Jack Teems wrote:
> Of course the ISP could charge, Bernie. The question is - could the amount
> be collected? Seems this would be even more difficult across international
> borders.
Sure --- many ISPs [including the one I consult for] only take accounts
via credit card... So you just bill the credit card and then sort it out
when/if they contest the charge.
/Bernie\
> > I was kicking around a thought: what if... the ToS for an ISP included a
> > reference to the AUP and basically said that there would be an $X
> > surcharge to a user's account in the event of violations of the AUP,
> > plus, say, $100/hr of billable time for any work it took on the part of
> > the support personnel to deal with the problem. ...
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-185.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.185])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06499
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:15:03 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:21:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <396B113F.32626.1E6A58@localhost>
In-reply-to:
References: <200007110800.BAA03879@honor.greatcircle.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11 Jul 2000, 10:18, Tom Neff wrote:
> It may very well have to do with something AOL is doing in HTML
> filtering. Given the prevalence of < > based markup languages (HTML, XML
> etc) these days, I would consider it most unwise to put angle brackets
> around my list name. Adam is right, use square brackets instead.
I have a hunch this is easier said than done as concerns the list
management software she is using. This involves more than a simple
subject prefix, since her verification procedures were involved.
Do what you will, but as for myself, I am no puppet to AOL. They don't
pull my strings. I can't see myself changing list administrative
operations because something was amiss with AOL.
My advice is to write AOL and explain the problem and ask them to
correct it on their end. If they refuse, then the decision rests to
either live with it, or ban all AOL subscriptions. I don't like the
latter, but I have known many a listowner who have reluctantly taken
that step.
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 10:48:27 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA11622; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D365A17E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from cnorman@localhost)
by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id KAA11678;
Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200007111729.KAA11678@shell7.ba.best.com>
From: Cyndi Norman
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com
In-reply-to:
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Reply-To: cnorman@best.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
From: "Tom Neff"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:18:20 -0400
It may very well have to do with something AOL is doing in HTML filtering.
Given the prevalence of < > based markup languages (HTML, XML etc) these
days, I would consider it most unwise to put angle brackets around my list
name. Adam is right, use square brackets instead.
Both of you said this, yes. But if you recall my post you'll see that this
is the lessor of two problems.
Well first of all I refuse to change something that's worked well for me
for years just because AOL can't handle it. For the same reason, I won't
use HTML to surround a perfectly good (and plain) URL just because the AOL
mailer appearently doesn't do what every other mailer does (point and click
or cut and paste).
But anyway...
The real problem is the authentication message for my mailing list
software. If I want to run my lists at best.com (and I do) then I have to
use their software and it uses angle brackets in the subject header.
Adding a period causes authentication to fail and then all these AOLers run
to me to subscribe them by hand.
Even if I had any control over that software (the person at Best who wrote
it no longer works there and best has never alloted staff hours to mailing
lists) I consider it AOL's problem, not Best's.
Has anyone written AOL to complain? what would be the address to complain?
What is AOL's official response? I know there are AOL staff people on this
list; can anyone comment?
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 14:18:26 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA13708; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293B617E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id QAA13795 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:20:51 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200007112120.QAA13795@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:20:53 -0500
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey
Cc:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 7/11/00 12:29 PM, Cyndi Norman wrote...
>Has anyone written AOL to complain? what would be the address to complain?
>What is AOL's official response? I know there are AOL staff people on this
>list; can anyone comment?
I have written to the people in the know, and confirmed that it is an
HTML issue. They do not know if and when it will be fixed, as it was
implemented intentionally.
You are welcome to write to postmaster@aol.com and explain why this is a
problem, but yours seems to be pretty rare. Other than the aesthetics
issue, your authentication problem is the first time I've seen where this
could actually cause a problem. What mailing list manager are you using
that handles authentications as such? Can it be modified?
Unless this impacts a lot of people, it may not be changed. The problem
AOL is trying to combat appears much more significant.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 14:33:28 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA13739; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7553617E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id QAA15205 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:24:44 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200007112124.QAA15205@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:24:46 -0500
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey
To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 7/11/00 12:21 PM, Alan S. Harrell wrote...
>Do what you will, but as for myself, I am no puppet to AOL. They don't
>pull my strings. I can't see myself changing list administrative
>operations because something was amiss with AOL.
AOL is the single largest access provider in the world. There are more
AOL members than several of its nearest competitors combined. I join in
complaining when AOL does something that I don't approve of, but I also
realize that sometimes you have to work around it -- especially if you
are providing a service that you want to be successful.
You are welcome to argue "AOL sucks" all day, and I won't waste my time
debating it. But some list owners simply don't have a choice but to deal
with what may comprise between 5-15% (or more) of their subscribership.
That's why I believe solutions are more useful than complaints, beyond
the therapeutic value of such.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 15:18:26 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA14217; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E56617E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA37320
; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:25:18 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <200007112124.QAA15205@mail.xnet.com>
References: <200007112124.QAA15205@mail.xnet.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:18:29 -0700
To: Adam Bailey ,
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 4:24 PM -0500 7/11/00, Adam Bailey wrote:
>On 7/11/00 12:21 PM, Alan S. Harrell wrote...
>
>>Do what you will, but as for myself, I am no puppet to AOL. They don't
>>pull my strings. I can't see myself changing list administrative
> >operations because something was amiss with AOL.
>You are welcome to argue "AOL sucks" all day, and I won't waste my time
>debating it.
Yup. They are a 500 pound gorilla, but then again, have they violated
any RFC here? It doesn't seem so.
Just because they're big doesn't mean they're by definition wrong here.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 16:03:26 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA14463; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3125117E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER7.GVA.NET [216.80.135.11])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e6BMv7I05942
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:57:08 -0400
Message-Id: <200007112257.e6BMv7I05942@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To:
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:57:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
In-reply-to: <200007112120.QAA13795@mail.xnet.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11 Jul 2000, at 16:20, Adam Bailey wrote:
> I have written to the people in the know, and confirmed that it is an
> HTML issue. They do not know if and when it will be fixed, as it was
> implemented intentionally.
[...]
> Unless this impacts a lot of people, it may not be changed. The problem
> AOL is trying to combat appears much more significant.
I'm missing something --- what 'problem' are they trying to combat?
What's the terrible problem with having a proper URL in a Subject line?
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-168.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.168])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07183
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:06:08 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:12:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <396B719B.15086.3CD03A@localhost>
In-reply-to: <200007112124.QAA15205@mail.xnet.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 11 Jul 2000, 16:24, Adam Bailey wrote:
> AOL is the single largest access provider in the world. There are more
> AOL members than several of its nearest competitors combined.
But not larger than all the rest combined. And I submit "large" is not
an excuse for all ills caused by the "large" entity.
> I join in complaining when AOL does something that I don't approve
> of, but I also realize that sometimes you have to work around it --
> especially if you are providing a service that you want to be
> successful.
Yes. Work around it, but don't be lead or controlled by it. As
administrators and listowners, you have to go by what you think is
right, even if it disagrees with AOL policy.
> You are welcome to argue "AOL sucks" all day,
I argued no such thing. My argument was that AOL should look for
better solutions that would not be so detrimental to Internet interests.
> and I won't waste my time debating it.
Please don't. It was never brought up. Everything I wrote could very
well be applied to any provider.
> But some list owners simply don't have a choice but to deal
> with what may comprise between 5-15% (or more) of their subscribership.
I can relate to that. At one time I owned a mailing list made up
primarily of Juno subscribers. We had several services we offered the
Juno users, but in managing the list itself, I did very little
compromising to my subscribers. As far as list administration went,
they all got equal treatment. That was a majordomo and I pretty much
did things as per my usual practice.
> That's why I believe solutions are more useful than complaints, beyond
> the therapeutic value of such.
I believe the solution will follow the complaints. The squeaky wheel
always gets the grease, first.
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 18:03:52 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA15521; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0D817E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id UAA16323 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:04:20 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200007120104.UAA16323@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:04:23 -0500
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey
To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 7/11/00 5:57 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote...
>On 11 Jul 2000, at 16:20, Adam Bailey wrote:
>
>> I have written to the people in the know, and confirmed that it is an
>> HTML issue. They do not know if and when it will be fixed, as it was
>> implemented intentionally.
>
> [...]
>
>> Unless this impacts a lot of people, it may not be changed. The problem
>> AOL is trying to combat appears much more significant.
>
>I'm missing something --- what 'problem' are they trying to combat?
>What's the terrible problem with having a proper URL in a Subject line?
AOL's mail system is heavily HTMLized, but without using variant
content-types. Thus, putting into a mail message has the
potential of being interpreted as an HTML tag. So AOL added the leading
dot, to make sure that wouldn't happen.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 23:03:50 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA17926; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D3117E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6C5wYo05311
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:58:35 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:59:09 -0700
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: list rules draft...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
since I'm (finally) almost ready to move my lists from my majordomo
server to my new linux/mailman server, I'm rewriting my rule pages
(again...). I dunno about all of you, but I get really sick and tired
of pages of "don't do that" rules (and I know end users REALLY hate
it), but I also hate dealing with the trolls who insist that if it's
not written down, it's okay. So I'm trying something different, just
to see if there's a reasonable medium.
I'm curious what you all think -- the pages are at:
If you're curious about the site, just start at the root of the
server and wander. Because of deadlines, the new server isn't
remotely "finished" (what is?), I'm starting out with a list
directory piece (a yahoo clone) and the mailman server, and a few
html pages linking them. To be added is a real web-archive based on
Mhonarc (since the one part of mailman just doesn't cut it), HtDig
for the search engine, and digest archives behind some kind of
anti-harvesting system I'm still gnawing on.
FWIW, after playing around with MIME stuff, I installed Nick's demime
in front of the lists, not because I don't want MIME, but because at
this point, I don't want ACTIVE CONTENT, and until I can write a tool
that cleanly limits what gets sent across a list to provably safe
content, I've chosen to stick to plain text. That's On the List to do
as well, but it's going to take some thought to do right, and I'd
rather err on the side of safety than add features that put users at
risk, and irght now, unfiltered MIME is a risky beast.
Curious what you think -- there seems to be *no* good way to write
list rules without pissing some group or another off, but hopefully,
this is less antagonistic than stuff I wrote a couple of versions
ago... it's definitely *shorter*, which is a bonus in itself...
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 23:33:26 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA18172; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BF417E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from twp@localhost)
by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id e6C6Svn53794;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:28:57 -0400
From: Tim Pierce
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: a minor giggle...
Message-ID: <20000712022857.W32625@ma-1.rootsweb.com>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us
In-Reply-To:
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 11:33:21PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
> It wasn't me... Instead, much to my (minor) amusement, one of my
> subscribers is on a site doing ORBs checking -- and the site's MX
> relay machines have been stuck into ORBs and the internal mail server
> is bouncing the mail.
I noticed this sometime in the last couple of weeks.
> Which merely serves as a reminder that if you police with this stuff,
> you should make sure your sites are clean. But I also wonder why
> they're doing ORBs checking on the internal machines and not the
> firewall relay machines.
In our case, it was a BellFrotz machine that used a FooBell server
as its primary MX. FooBell uses ORBS and rejects all mail from
BellFrotz. Since the two sites are administered under completely
different policies, it's not entirely surprising that they'd screw
the pooch in that particular way. But still amusing.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer
From list-managers-owner Tue Jul 11 23:48:41 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA18284; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FD717E8A
for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from twp@localhost)
by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id e6C6hsl53909;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:43:54 -0400
From: Tim Pierce
To: Bernie Cosell
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: spam.
Message-ID: <20000712024354.X32625@ma-1.rootsweb.com>
References: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us
In-Reply-To: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 08:10:02PM -0400, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2000, at 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>
> > We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
> > morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
> > seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
>
> Indeed, although an important difference to keep in mind is that that
> kind of spam dealt with in seconds with a keystroke or two [or even
> automatically in most cases], whereas the hardcopy stuff we've learned to
> just live with has to be handled, sorted, and carted to the dump [no
> recycling for that sort of stuff in this area] and actually wastes
> *real*time*...
For what it's worth, electronic spam does in fact consume real time
for me, far more than the trivial couple of minutes a month that
sorting the junk mail does. The "save-a-tree, send-a-spam" shtick
is a Sanford Wallace myth. It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's
not trivial.
The stories I've heard from other sysadmins indicate that I am not
alone. Pumping a high volume of spam (thousands of messages a
minute) through a single server is nearly always going to cause
someone grief.
[I know that the dead horse is now only a distant memory of those
who once beat it, but sometimes I just can't help myself.]
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 00:04:53 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA18538; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBE717E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from twp@localhost)
by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id e6C77Jb54101;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:07:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:07:19 -0400
From: Tim Pierce
To: "Alan S. Harrell"
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: egroups
Message-ID: <20000712030719.Y32625@ma-1.rootsweb.com>
References: <3958444E.B035AF8@egroups.net> <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us
In-Reply-To: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 08:01:05PM -0500, Alan S. Harrell wrote:
>
> No Privacy statement is secure so long as there is a possibility of a
> disgruntled employee. It only takes one disgruntled employee to
> compromise privacy security measures.
This is essentially true of any organization, from banks to credit
card issuers to insurance carriers to libraries. While I do believe
that you are not trying to single out eGroups as being worse than
any other "dot com" in this regard, I do get the sense that you
are implicitly singling out technology industries as less respectful
than more traditional and boring industries. I don't think I agree
that we can assume that Mastercard, say, is immune to the siren
song of identity trading. They are certainly going to be in a
better position to do it quietly, for what that's worth.
> No Privacy statement is secure when companies are sold or merged into
> another company.
When one company buys another, it inherits their legal obligations
and responsibilities. If a privacy statement means anything at
all, if it has any legal weight whatever, then the larger company
is legally obliged to honor the other's privacy policies. The only
way that this could not be true is if the privacy statement is
legally meaningless -- in which case you never had any assurance that
eGroups would abide by its own privacy policy to begin with.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 04:07:51 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA23781; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mds1.mastnet.net (mds1.mastnet.net [206.65.193.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFAC17E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-187.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.187])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA09201
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 05:52:44 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 05:59:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: egroups
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <396C0929.32734.2ED7F2@localhost>
In-reply-to: <20000712030719.Y32625@ma-1.rootsweb.com>
References: <3960F101.14448.727638@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12 Jul 2000, 3:07, Tim Pierce wrote:
> This is essentially true of any organization, from banks to credit
> card issuers to insurance carriers to libraries. While I do believe
> that you are not trying to single out eGroups as being worse than any
> other "dot com" in this regard, I do get the sense that you are
> implicitly singling out technology industries as less respectful than
> more traditional and boring industries.
[...]
On the contrary. We are discussing this issue within the scope and
context of the "List-Managers" mailing list. I see no purpose in
bringing in all Industries into the debate. Points are directed at
Internet and in particular, mailing list hosting services.
However, since you chose to bring it up, I will simply express my
opinion that pure e-commerce companies are less reputable than long
established corporations just by virtue of their age. It is like
comparing a misbehaving child to a mature adult. The child is more
likely to see what he can get away with.
If you went into a department store and there was a 12 year old behind
the counter, would you hand him your credit card? Even if he said to
you, "You can trust me, mister?"
> When one company buys another, it inherits their legal obligations
> and responsibilities. If a privacy statement means anything at
> all, if it has any legal weight whatever, then the larger company
> is legally obliged to honor the other's privacy policies.
But there is the point. It has no legal weight to the user because the
document is written in the host's favor. There are no protections in a
privacy statement to the user of the service. It is totally written to
protect the interests of the host.
> The only way that this could not be true is if the privacy statement
> is legally meaningless -- in which case you never had any assurance
> that eGroups would abide by its own privacy policy to begin with.
Nearly every privacy statement and TOS has a clause that states that
the document is subject to change with or without notice and the new
terms shall be in force and there is nothing you can do to object to
the change, short of leaving the service. So, Yahoo will have the
right to change the eGroups privacy and TOS documents to suit their
interests and you can bet your money they will.
As for myself, it will matter not, for I will distrust either the same.
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 04:37:50 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA24102; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B432217E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fantasy (USER14.GVA.NET [216.80.135.18])
by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e6CBa2B27693
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:36:03 -0400
Message-Id: <200007121136.e6CBa2B27693@mail.rev.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell"
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:36:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: spam.
In-reply-to: <20000712024354.X32625@ma-1.rootsweb.com>
References: <200007040010.e640A4Q30568@mail.rev.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12 Jul 2000, at 2:43, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 08:10:02PM -0400, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> > On 3 Jul 2000, at 15:15, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> >
> > > We were spammed today. Laurie wandered out onto the porch this
> > > morning to find a flyer on the front porch, for a "power management"
> > > seminar. They leafletted the entire neighborhood....
> >
> > Indeed, although an important difference to keep in mind is that that
> > kind of spam dealt with in seconds with a keystroke or two [or even
> > automatically in most cases], whereas the hardcopy stuff we've learned to
> > just live with has to be handled, sorted, and carted to the dump [no
> > recycling for that sort of stuff in this area] and actually wastes
> > *real*time*...
>
> For what it's worth, electronic spam does in fact consume real time
> for me, far more than the trivial couple of minutes a month that
> sorting the junk mail does....
>
> The stories I've heard from other sysadmins indicate that I am not
> alone. ...
You're mixing apples and oranges. I was talking from the _user's_ point
of view, you're talking from the sysadmin's. I think your opinion of
"junk USmail" would probably have a similar shift if you were in charge
of the mailroom at a large condo complex and had to sort, handle and
deliver hundreds of thousands of "GET INSURANCE FREE" and such blurbs.
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 05:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost)
by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA23970
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Miles Fidelman
X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: legal liability of list managers - what's the latest word?
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Hi Folks,
Does anybody know the latest word on the legal liability of list managers?
Last time I looked, there was little statutory law, and a little case law,
that was going in the direction of:
- relative immunity for ISPs and hands-off list managers (common-carrier
like regime), vs.
- slander, libel, and copyright liability for active moderators (like
newspapers, based on the Prodigy case)
Does anybody have a more recent view of the world, based on some of the
more recent legislation and legal cases? Does anybody have a good
reference or list reference?
Also... any sense of where things are going regarding liability for things
like advice given on a moderated list?
Thanks much,
Miles
**************************************************************************
The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618
Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006
Director, Municipal Telecommunications
Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946
mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html
Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century
Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere
Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!"
**************************************************************************
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 08:18:58 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA25931; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu [128.84.247.48])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A996D17E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (mkc@localhost)
by larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA83404;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:12:52 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from mkc@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu)
Message-Id: <200007121512.LAA83404@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu>
To: Chuq Von Rospach
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach
of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:18:29 PDT."
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:12:52 -0400
From: Mitch Collinsworth
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
>Just because they're big doesn't mean they're by definition wrong here.
Just because they're big doesn't mean they have the right to
unilaterally define new internet standards.
-Mitch
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 08:48:31 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA26124; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EBC17E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197])
by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6CFeMo08215;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:40:22 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <200007121512.LAA83404@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu>
References: <200007121512.LAA83404@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:39:59 -0700
To: Mitch Collinsworth ,
Chuq Von Rospach
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
At 11:12 AM -0400 7/12/00, Mitch Collinsworth wrote:
> >Just because they're big doesn't mean they're by definition wrong here.
>
>Just because they're big doesn't mean they have the right to
>unilaterally define new internet standards.
Are they defining new standards here?
If *I* did this, would anyone be screaming at me? Probably not. Are
people screaming because this is wrong, or because, since AOL did it,
it gives them an excuse to yell at AOL? It really seems the latter --
it's not that this is bad, it's that this is AOL, and therefore, it's
a chance to complain.
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 09:48:38 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA26749; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [160.91.68.105])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 75D4D17E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 673031 invoked by uid 3995); 12 Jul 2000 16:49:13 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14700.41353.411837.965455@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
In-Reply-To:
References: <200007112124.QAA15205@mail.xnet.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 "20 Minutes to Nikko" XEmacs Lucid (patch 2)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M wrote:
>Yup. [AOL] are a 500 pound gorilla, but then again, have they violated
>any RFC here? It doesn't seem so.
I'm not an RFC lawyer, but a quick look 821/822 doesn't turn up
anything that prohibits MTA's from arbitrarily munging messages. (!)
And, of course, that only covers MTAMTA transactions. Once the MTA
passes the message off to the MDA (delivery agent), all bets are off.
>Just because they're big doesn't mean they're by definition wrong here.
And just because they aren't violating an RFC (if, in fact, they
aren't) doesn't mean they're right, either.
In my opinion, any mail system that changes the contents of a message
beyond adding the RFC-821 Received header fields is "wrong". Of
course, any mail system that changes even one bit of the message body
will break most (all?) digital signature systems. Sure, there are
"harmless" header munges like canonifying domain names that won't
break anything, but those are definitely the exception.
-Dave
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 10:48:53 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27189; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mds1.mastnet.net (mds1.mastnet.net [206.65.193.1])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7BE17E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 0d8xk (ppp-181.lake-jackson.mastnet.net [206.66.213.181])
by mds1.mastnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03710
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:27:33 -0500
From: "Alan S. Harrell"
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:33:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: legal liability of list managers - what's the latest word?
Reply-To: ASHandRR@mastnet.net
Message-ID: <396C65B2.18785.12DD253@localhost>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
On 12 Jul 2000, 8:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[...]
> Also... any sense of where things are going regarding liability for
> things like advice given on a moderated list?
IMHO...
Years ago I read that our liability to our subscribers was dependent on
what our subscribers paid for the service. From that I have since
concluded that on a free list to which neither the subscribers pay you
money nor for which you, the owner, make any money, the owner's
liability for actions which yourself or other subscribers cause, or
even that which their provider's cause, should be nil. If you charge
your subscribers a fee or possibly if you accept and distribute ads
from which you derive revenue for yourself, then it might be a good
idea to include a disclaimer in both your welcome letter and in your
distributions.
Let me ask this question to all of ya'll. Do you know of any instance
where a subscriber suffered debilitating mental anguish or monetary
lose due to the actions of a listowner, that possibly could be the
basis of a suit based on current laws, separate and apart from the
aspect of an e-mail mailing list? I ask that because I doubt very
seriously there are current laws that address the "e-mail list" as an
entity. More likely, any cause for a suit would be brought up on
current laws, such as libel.
You're greatest fear today as listowners is not the law, but lawyers.
Lawyers will often attempt to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation) their employer's critics. If this be in a mailing list
to which you have responsibility, you might be the target of a SLAPP,
though the actual case would have no merit. The object is to quiet or
rid the critic by forcing them into costly legal defences. Most of us
could not afford a lawyer to fight a SLAPP suit and we would end up
acquiescing to their demands.
Alan
ASHandRR@MASTNET.net
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 10:50:00 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27378; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3804017E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from cnorman@localhost)
by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id KAA06403;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200007121754.KAA06403@shell7.ba.best.com>
From: Cyndi Norman
To: chuqui@plaidworks.com
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com
In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von
Rospach on Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:39:59 -0700)
Subject: Re: AOL changing subject headers?
Reply-To: cnorman@best.com
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:39:59 -0700
From: Chuq Von Rospach
If *I* did this, would anyone be screaming at me? Probably not. Are
people screaming because this is wrong, or because, since AOL did it,
it gives them an excuse to yell at AOL? It really seems the latter --
it's not that this is bad, it's that this is AOL, and therefore, it's
a chance to complain.
I'm sorry Chuq but that's just not even close. Did you see my original
post? I'm complaining because the net effect is extra work for me, and
annoying to boot. The fact that it's AOL is irrelevant to me. Any large
provider would do (or a small provider if they made up more than a handful
of my subscribers).
This isn't a personality issue and your casting it that way is just going
to lead to yet another flame war on this list. I'd say "pointless flame
war" except they're all pointless. I was about to unsubscribe even though
I've been here for years. I find about 1% of posts to this list useful and
it used to be more like 50%. This is an issue about subject headers, not
whether or not we like AOL in general.
Hotmail changes angle brackets to square brackets and I have to have
special subscription directions for hotmail users. It doesn't seem to
affect the subjects in list replies though, only in replies to
authentication posts (I have no idea why). I did mention the hotmail
problem in my first post, but I discovered it years ago and dealt with it
then. The AOL problem is brand new.
And, no, I have no choice about how the list software is configured for
authentication. I can change the subject prefix but this one has worked
well for me for years so why should I change it just because AOL gets a
whim about angle brackets being evil in subject headers? Maybe next week
they'll decide square brackets are bad too. Even if I did change it, I'd
still have the authentication problem and that means users asking for my
help to subscribe.
I'm still hoping to hear from the AOL staff members who I know belong to
this list (or at least some did in the past).
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
From list-managers-owner Wed Jul 12 11:04:42 2000
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27298; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71])
by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE5317E8A
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NY11014250B ([160.43.2.2])
by grassyhill.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA96547
for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:45:48 GMT
(envelope-from tneff@panix.com)
From: "Tom Neff"